[ Molosser Talk The Original ]

Thank you for posting to the BEST Molosser site on the net. Have a picture to share?
Please post to the Molosser gallery linked above the board.
. Who knows it may be out next dog on top.

Yet another city trying for mandatory sterilization - Chicago Posted by cath on April 30, 2008, 12:39 pm 128.241.42.208 Including criminal background checks for breeders. If you know anyone that supports the likes of the Humane Society of the US and other AR groups give them a good slap upside the head to wake them up. Neuter news April 29, 2008 BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist The pet net: Dogfighters and owners of unneutered pets, beware! • • To wit: Sneed has learned Ald. Ed Burke plans to introduce a City Council ordinance demanding the mandatory sterilization of any dog or cat over 6 months old living in Chicago. • • The stats: Exceptions would be animals belonging to licensed breeders, law enforcement dogs and vet exemptions for animals due to health reasons. • • The buckshot: Penalties would be monetary, and the ordinance would call for criminal background checks for breeders seeking a new license or license renewal. • • The backshot: Burke wants to stem the tide of Chicagoans mauled by pit bulls and those breeding dogs to fight. • • The upshot: Sneed hears the city's underfunded Animal Care and Control unit doesn't have enough workers to respond to dog-mauling reports and is working with Burke on new legislation. http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/920422,CST-NWS-SNEED29.article#  Post a Response

Re: Yet another city trying for mandatory sterilization - Chicago Posted by pugnbox on April 30, 2008, 1:16 pm, in reply to "Yet another city trying for mandatory sterilization - Chicago" 71.5.88.66 I live in Chicago and saw this on the news last night. I realize a lot of people on this board are against these laws. Is there other reasons to be against this other than the government intrusion issue? Because besides being unsure about that, i'm for it. Weighing them on the scale, I think i'd be willing to give up the 'freedom' to backyard breed so that others who actually want to and think they can profit from it, can't.  Post a Response

Except the law isn't really aimed at that Posted by cath on April 30, 2008, 1:27 pm, in reply to "Re: Yet another city trying for mandatory sterilization - Chicago" 128.241.42.208 Think about it. First, animal rightists think all breeding is basically evil and they want it all stopped (that includes the inHumane Society of the US). Second, mandatory s/n has shown to be a failure and there are health risks associated with mandatory s/n. Its up to owners to make an informed decision. Third, ARs flat out lie about why animals are in shelters. They blame it on breeders. There are other reasons though (there are other studies in addition to these) - http://www.canismajor.com/dog/surrend1.html http://www.canismajor.com/dog/overpop.html For more on the studies and how mandatory s/n has failed - http://www.saveourdogs.net I don't know how familiar you are with the goals of animal rights groups like the inHumane Society of the US, PETA, Best "Friends" and their ilk, but the goal is to end any and all animal use. That not only includes eating meat but having no pets. They cloak this agenda in pretending to care about animals. PETA kills most of the animals it takes in without trying to find them homes, the inHumane Society spends a TINY fraction of its millions actually helping animals. Most of their money is used for salaries, fundraising and lobbying for laws that make it harder for you to have animals. There is NOT ONE law backed by ARs that make it more fun or enjoyable to have pets. Not ONE. Ironic from those who claim they're doing it to help animals.  Post a Response

Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that Posted by Karen on April 30, 2008, 2:21 pm, in reply to "Except the law isn't really aimed at that" 76.21.226.117 They are also gateway laws... The ARs know if you get one passed it can open up to a lot more. The only mandatory altering law I want is animals sold through STORES. The rest needs to be incentive and accessibility as opposed to force.  Post a Response

Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that Posted by sylvia on April 30, 2008, 2:43 pm, in reply to "Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that" 198.110.167.50 While I am not in favor of our government taking away even more of our rights...I do not believe for one minute that the right to eat meat or to own a pet will be taken away...for Gods sake people, come on, it's ludricris, how would they even attempt to enforce this...  Post a Response

Did you ever think pit bulls would be banned? Posted by cath on April 30, 2008, 3:08 pm, in reply to "Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that" 128.241.42.208 Or any other breed? How about banning tying out of dogs on your own property? Requiring a license of $500 per year to have an intact dog? Did you ever think there would be lunatic lawyers who do nothing but animal law? I don't think we'll reach the point of eliminating animals but they can still do a lot of damage along the way.  Post a Response

Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that Posted by Angela on April 30, 2008, 3:11 pm, in reply to "Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that" 71.114.185.59 10 years ago people did not believe our government would tell us how many or what types of pets we could have...but they do. In many cities it is illegal for me to own my dog. While I can't imagine a world where you can't own pets, I would never say never.  Post a Response

Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that Posted by Karen on April 30, 2008, 3:29 pm, in reply to "Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that" 76.21.226.117 The next step will be similar to what is happening in VA right now with a rabies reporting bill used to force into licensing, etc. Now licensing is mandatory but anyhow... You make vets send in documentation to the county regarding every altering they do. You compare that to other data such as rabies or license data and WHAMMO - you now know who may have an intact animal. It is really not a far reach as something similar is being done in VA right now where vets have to send copies of all canine rabies certificates to the state so those who are not licensing or whatever can be tracked down.  Post a Response

One trick pony :( Posted by Jill B on April 30, 2008, 7:04 pm, in reply to "Yet another city trying for mandatory sterilization - Chicago" 72.84.166.178 Maybe someone should "slap you upside the head". Holy crap do you really need to be so abrasive in trying to get your point across?  Post a Response

Grow up already Posted by cath on April 30, 2008, 7:38 pm, in reply to " One trick pony :(" 128.241.42.208 Maybe you know you're wrong to support AR groups and thats why you're so hypersensitive. I have been slapped upside the head. Friends with banned breeds, some live in cities (or states) with mandatory sterilization or proposed mandatory sterilization, some are faced with ridiculously high fees for an intact dog even though they have control over their dogs. Some can't tie out their dogs anymore. There's a long list of the "good work" these groups are doing.  Post a Response

Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that Posted by Sara R on April 30, 2008, 9:49 pm, in reply to "Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that" 69.146.141.154 Did you ever think You'd see Labs on any breed ban lists? Or Great Danes making the list for people that won't get home owners insurance? Ever thought that there'd be a bill that basically ensures the overpopulation, neglect and mistreatment of a livestock animal because WE can't manage to eat them but other countries do? I could go on and on with things I thought would NEVER happen...that have happened... I can't say I think it's likely that we'll lose our pets...but honestly...I can't say it'll never happen. I'm familiar with how they do this...the AR/PETA types...I read a book...seemed great...then WHAMMO I get clobbered and actually found myself feeling GUILTY of "caging" my horses on forty acres and riding them around for my own benefit... I'm the farthest thing from a PETA type...I love my steak and prefer not to know how it comes to me on my plate...I have a heart, don't get me wrong but...I draw a line...animal...human... I was finding myself on the other side of the line JUST about to forget what the rammifcations would truly be if we bought into what that book was selling... I'm educated...logical...the last person to "buy" into some BS...but still...basically got TAKEN for a ride by this seemingly innocuous book... Same goes for seemingly innocuous laws... Sara  Post a Response

Re: Yet another city trying for mandatory sterilization - Chicago Posted by drew on May 1, 2008, 6:19 am, in reply to "Yet another city trying for mandatory sterilization - Chicago" 64.12.116.139 Penalties would be monetary, and the ordinance would call for criminal background checks for breeders seeking a new license or license renewal. In some ways this is a good Idea As long as its done leagally  Post a Response

Re: Except the law isn't really aimed at that Posted by pugnbox on May 1, 2008, 9:32 pm, in reply to "Except the law isn't really aimed at that" 24.15.132.8 Thanks for the info. It's a complex issue with pro's & con's to both sides. I didn't realizing spay/neuter could lead to such conditions. Although, i'll take my chances with it and continue to do so.  Post a Response

     «Back to thread

Please see bottom of board for rules.